Please help a new guy

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

I will be looking at these stones later this week and wondered if someone could please DiamCalc them and post the info. Also, please let me know what you think about them since I'm new to this. Will be most likely buying one or the other. Thanks a lot for the help.

Stone 1
$7127
AGS 0, G, SI1 1.22
Table: 56
Total Depth: 61
Crown ang: 34.2
Pav ang: 40.8
Crown ht: 15
Pav depth: 42.9
Gir: .7-1.6
6.89-6.93-4.22


Stone 2
$6750
AGS 0, H, SI1, 1.22
Table: 54
Total Depth: 61.9
Crown ang: 34.1
Pav ang: 40.8
Crown ht: 15.8
Pav depth: 43.2
Gir: 1.3-1.9
6.83-6.89-4.24

Both are ideal symmetry and polish

 

[strmrdr]

large earrings anyone?
The only real difference between them is the girdle everything else is within the margin of error between them assuming equal optical symmetry.
Which is a big assumption.
Look at them both and let your eyeballs decide.

 

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

Ha I wish I could give her those, but it is going into an engagement ring. Going to be a surprise

 

[strmrdr]

I edited it and added more info.
I figured that saying they would make a nice pair of earrings wasnt informative enough :}

 

[strmrdr]

If they were from seperate vendors and you werent seeing them in person Id ask for ideal-scope images and more angle data h&a photos and what not.

diamcalc wouldnt help much because we dont know anything about the optical symetry of the diamonds and any assumptions diamcalc may make might be wrong when they are this close.
So in other words let your eyeballs do the picking and try to look at them under as many lighting conditions as possible.

 

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

bump

 

[Maxine]

Date: 7/26/2005 1:05:33 PM
Author: strmrdr
large earrings anyone?
The only real difference between them is the girdle everything else is within the margin of error between them assuming equal optical symmetry.
Which is a big assumption.
Look at them both and let your eyeballs decide.

Well, another slight difference is th color......you probably don''t notice a difference, but it probably affects the price.....

 

[Maxine]

ETA: the second one is a bit deeper, and has a bit less spread.....How do they look to you????

 

[Rhino]

Hi FTB,

Welcome to the forum. When I see 2 stones with such close measurements in the main angles (and both have very nice main angles btw) the first question that naturally comes to my mind is "What are the measurements of the minor facets?" (particularly lower girdle length, star facet length and upper girdle angles) and also "How tight are the variances within each set of facets?" as these measurements can alter the appearance and change the character or nature in the way in which these stones reflect light back to the observer. Certain measurements of the minors can alter scintillation notably, certain measurements can increase or decrease contrast. I''m working from a remote laptop at the moment but if I had my DiamCalc on this computer I''d be able to better demonstrate what I''m talking about. If you search for prior posts from me you will see examples which I''ve posted in the past as we''ve discussed this subjec on the forum before.

Knowledge of these other facet measurements will now be necessary to weed out what GIA and AGS will deem as "ideal" in the new grading systems. To my knowledge the exact tolerances have not been given yet so we are studying each newly graded stone on a case by case basis.

Regards,

 

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

Thanks for the all the good info. One question I have is where can I find out about the minor facet measurements?

 

[Regular Guy]

Hey New Guy,

Me Regular Guy,

Later I'll introduce you to my friends Tarzan & Jane.

OK...three things:

1) Re your question....

Date: 7/27/2005 12:29:43 AM
Author: FirstTimeBuyer33
Thanks for the all the good info. One question I have is where can I find out about the minor facet measurements?

I'd like to know that, too. So...although Johnathan at GOG will run 3 D Scans of his diamonds, chances are he does not also serve as an appraiser, and certainly is no independent appraiser, for 3rd party diamonds such as yours. So, presuming someone were knowledgeable enough to read them, where could Joe Q Public send these guys to get a 3 D scan PGS?

2) Storm is probably right re details for diamond calc.

3) Nevertheless, I'm going to give it a shot; first #1, and then #2.

a) #1

 

[strmrdr]

http://www.goodoldgold.com/minor_facets.htm

minor facet info

 

[strmrdr]

RG - click on the advanced tab and increase the stars to 55% and reduce the lower facets to 77% then post the results vs the results you allready posted.
Thats what Rhino is talking about.

 

[Regular Guy]

wait Storm...and why would I do that...this is imputing data I don''t know...

Ok, here''s #2...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/27/2005 1:38:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy
wait Storm...and why would I do that...this is imputing data I don''t know...


Ok, here''s #2...

You dont know that the diamcalc default is right either which is Rhino''s point that depending on the minor facets they could still look a lot different from one another even if the main angles are close to each other.

 

[Regular Guy]

and now importing with performance data....

#1

 

[Regular Guy]

and with performance data for #2...

 

[Regular Guy]

OK, so I''ll let others posit conclusions, with a few observations...

As stated earlier, these are very close.

Although defaults are assumed in both cases, given the defaults, though #2 may seem and in fact BE advantaged(???), I don''t think the tolerances for either would allow those conclusions...but others may venture better about that.

Storm, not following your point...

Date: 7/27/2005 1:54:41 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/27/2005 1:38:52 AM
Author: Regular Guy
wait Storm...and why would I do that...this is imputing data I don''t know...


Ok, here''s #2...

You dont know that the diamcalc default is right either which is Rhino''s point that depending on the minor facets they could still look a lot different from one another even if the main angles are close to each other.

...since I don''t know anything about these minor facets, what would be my purpose in altering them...except to experiment...and see what variances I could get. Yet, since these variances may or may not begin to reflect reality, wouldn''t I have something better to do? (indeed!).

...and returning to the first...were I this very guy, FirstTimeBuyer33, seeking to determine if the minors will be important to me, who could I send these guys to, to provide that level of analysis?

Regards, and best wishes,

 

[strmrdr]

lol
No RG you dont have any thing to better to do than to play with diamcalc or you would be doing it.
The point would be to show how the minor facets could make a difference given close main angles.
Read Rhino''s responce above for more.

 

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

Saw both stones on friday and both were very nice and you couldn''t really tell them apart. The ideal-scope showed the H stone be a little better, but the symmetry for the H&A was better for the G. Does the ideal-scope really mean that much and also what about the H&A''s?

 

[belle]

i am not surprised that your eyes could not see a difference in these stones. the angles on them are very, very similar giving them similar characteristics. as far as the idealscope, it is used to determine light leakage. less light leakage equals more light reflecting back to your eyes. the h&a viewer can be used to view the placement of the minor facets that rhino was talking about earlier. when the minor facets are properly placed, the hearts will be perfect.
did you make a decision between them yet?

 

[FirstTimeBuyer33]

Have not made a decision yet. I have to sometime this morning, so I was hoping to see what others might think. In one corner, the H stone with the smaller table and a little bit better idea scope(the G had some leakage around the table) and in the other corner, the G stone with the better hearts(both similar on good arrows). You could only see the color difference when against white. The G stone had two small feathers on the outside of the table and the H had a feather almost at the edge of the stone.